Sequestration to kill 1,000 NSF grants

NIH to cut into every grant it funds, fund fewer.

The impending cuts to federal spending, triggered by the sequestration deal, have led to a variety of speculation about how noticeable the impact will be on the average citizen. For US-based scientists however, the US government is the single largest source of funding. Researchers were pretty certain that sequestration would hit them very noticeably. Initial estimates suggested that budgets would be slashed by more than eight percent. With the cuts about to kick in, the news has gotten somewhat better—but only somewhat.

The National Science Foundation expects its overall budget will be cut by five percent. In a statement, the Foundation says it has set three priorities for minimizing the impact of these cuts: "Protect commitments to NSF’s core mission and maintain existing awards; protect the NSF workforce; and Protect STEM human capital development programs." To that end, existing grants will be largely unaffected, but new grants will take a major hit—a thousand fewer will be funded this year.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is in line for a similar five percent cut. The NIH plans on passing the cut on to every grant renewed during the coming fiscal year. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology has gone through and figured out what that will mean for each state based on how many NIH funded researchers are there. In addition, it will also end up cutting back on the new grants awarded, although it did not have specific numbers for this.

These cutbacks come at a time when the success rate for grant applications had already been in decline for a number of years. By dramatically reducing the total number of grants available, the cuts will make the competition much more fierce. The danger is that this will force a number of highly trained researchers to find work elsewhere. Even if the cuts are later reversed, valuable expertise may be lost.

Every time the California Assembly wants to raise taxes they threaten the public with eliminating the things they really enjoy, like parks. It's a disgusting tactic but efficient as hell. The comprehensive tax burden in California is the highest in the country.

How about reporting on what their budget is like in a historical context. What year did they last have this much money to spend? Did the 'cut' even cancel out the increases they have got in the last year or so?

Did anyone else notice that both agencies have said that their overhead in managing the granting money will increase as a percentage of the available money?

I wonder how many of these politicians regularly use a smartphone or PC to communicate their disbelief in the value of scientific research.

This.

In many cases, scientific research leads to future benefits that we may not yet realize. This is an incredibly short-sighted move. At a time when the America is considered in long term decline, the US should be doubling down on scientific research, not cutting it. Such stupidity, short term thinking is what got us into the current recession. It will continue to lead to the long term decline of the US as a technological leader.

I say good! Every single government entity should be able to handle a 5% cut. The problem is that the people in charge of each division jump straight to reducing the stuff the people need most instead of finding waste to cut.

On a side note, even with the cuts from sequestration, the federal budget is STILL HIGHER than it was last year. They're just cutting out some of what was added, not going to numbers lower than last year.

Let's say we gave the NIH a 10% bigger budget this year... and then later find out we need to cut 5% of their budget... I'm willing to bet they'd still say the sky is falling even though they got by last year.

Prove you have done everything you can to cut waste and then we'll talk about giving you more money.

I say good! Every single government entity should be able to handle a 5% cut.

What are you basing this on?

It's based on a paradoxical worldview that large organizations should be able to run extremely lean with nothing to spare, and simultaneously be able to easily absorb large cuts without having a significant impact on operations.

I say good! Every single government entity should be able to handle a 5% cut.

What are you basing this on?

It's based on a paradoxical worldview that large organizations should be able to run extremely lean with nothing to spare, and simultaneously be able to easily absorb large cuts without having a significant impact on operations.

Only, they aren't doing the first part. Why in the world does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?

I say good! Every single government entity should be able to handle a 5% cut. The problem is that the people in charge of each division jump straight to reducing the stuff the people need most instead of finding waste to cut.

On a side note, even with the cuts from sequestration, the federal budget is STILL HIGHER than it was last year. They're just cutting out some of what was added, not going to numbers lower than last year.

Let's say we gave the NIH a 10% bigger budget this year... and then later find out we need to cut 5% of their budget... I'm willing to bet they'd still say the sky is falling even though they got by last year.

Prove you have done everything you can to cut waste and then we'll talk about giving you more money.

(incoming down votes)

The thing about scientific research is that it creates new wealth down the line. It's an investment and not just plain old spending. If we're going to cut the budget (and I agree that we should), why focus on areas where the return on investment is so high?

I say good! Every single government entity should be able to handle a 5% cut.

What are you basing this on?

It's based on a paradoxical worldview that large organizations should be able to run extremely lean with nothing to spare, and simultaneously be able to easily absorb large cuts without having a significant impact on operations.

Yup. There have already been cuts throughout government funded scientific research for the past several years. Many grants are already cut to the bone, and an another 5-10% reduction will sink some of them entirely. Quite simply, there is no more fat to cut, you're starting to cut arteries.

The last link is so alarming that it sounds like a political operative wrote it.

That said,

Quote:

at least 75 percent of the grant budgets are for salaries

this (from the link) is frightening to consider in a recovering economy.

You realise that (as an example) probably more than that % of game development costs are salaries, right? So what is your point? That most research is just smart people doing work, rather than purchasing "things". Hardly either pertinent or indeed frightening.

I say good! Every single government entity should be able to handle a 5% cut.

What are you basing this on?

It's based on a paradoxical worldview that large organizations should be able to run extremely lean with nothing to spare, and simultaneously be able to easily absorb large cuts without having a significant impact on operations.

Yup. There have already been cuts throughout government funded scientific research for the past several years. Many grants are already cut to the bone, and an another 5-10% reduction will sink some of them entirely. Quite simply, there is no more fat to cut, you're starting to cut arteries.

And when projects that were being funded run out of money, the value they could have added by going to completion is pretty much wasted. It's not really a good idea to try and fight wasteful spending by turning your previously productive spending into waste.

"It [proposed NIH budget for 2013] would be the 10th year in a row that NIH's budget has not kept pace with biomedical research inflation, he says. As a result, in inflation-adjusted dollars, "we'd be 20% below where we were a decade ago" (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... -2013.html)

It's tough, I know, but in times of private-sector fiscal austerity, the government also must tighten its belt since it is dependent on the private sector financially (which it taxes and then borrows against in order to spend.) This inevitably means that government largess of free money for all kinds of things is necessarily curtailed. However, when the current economic cycle waxes strong again, these things will change and money will be freed up.

It is, I believe, an undisputed scientific fact that money does not grow on trees. Even so, there are still many of a contrary opinion who often swear that it does...

I say good! Every single government entity should be able to handle a 5% cut.

What are you basing this on?

It's based on a paradoxical worldview that large organizations should be able to run extremely lean with nothing to spare, and simultaneously be able to easily absorb large cuts without having a significant impact on operations.

Only, they aren't doing the first part. Why in the world does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?

And you know this how? Stats pls or it's just made up. How exactly would they "prove" to you that they were running lean enough?

The thing about scientific research is that it creates new wealth down the line. It's an investment and not just plain old spending. If we're going to cut the budget (and I agree that we should), why focus on areas where the return on investment is so high?

I don't disagree with you. The problem is that EVERYONE can make a good argument for why their area shouldn't be cut. If we could make cuts in other places (military included) that would cover this, I'd be pretty happy but then the other areas are going to complain. The only way to really get it done is to do widespread cuts but let the individual departments decide where the cuts come from.

"1994: NSF, together with DARPA and NASA, launches the Digital Library Initiative. One of the first six grants goes to Stanford University, where two graduate students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, begin to develop a search engine that uses the links between Web pages as a ranking method. They will later commercialize their search engine under the name Google."

Yeah, what has the NSF done to help out the American economy lately, anyway...

I imagine that one grant has paid off so handsomely that all NSF activities for the next few decades, literally, are covered. Can you imagine if the NSF gained a competitive investment stake in all products of the research it supports? No more funding problems, that's for sure.

The thing about scientific research is that it creates new wealth down the line. It's an investment and not just plain old spending. If we're going to cut the budget (and I agree that we should), why focus on areas where the return on investment is so high?

I don't disagree with you. The problem is that EVERYONE can make a good argument for why their area shouldn't be cut. If we could make cuts in other places (military included) that would cover this, I'd be pretty happy but then the other areas are going to complain. The only way to really get it done is to do widespread cuts but let the individual departments decide where the cuts come from.

My real beef is with the arbitrary nature of these cuts. Five or 10 percent across the board to every program just isn't a smart way to do it. Maybe it's the only way to get it done in this toxic political environment, but it's still stupid as hell.

My real beef is with the arbitrary nature of these cuts. Five or 10 percent across the board to every program just isn't a smart way to do it. Maybe it's the only way to get it done in this toxic political environment, but it's still stupid as hell.

Agreed. It isn't just one side's fault though. Both Dems and Reps put us in this political climate and if we let them continue to demagogue everything, they'll never have a reason to change.

My real beef is with the arbitrary nature of these cuts. Five or 10 percent across the board to every program just isn't a smart way to do it. Maybe it's the only way to get it done in this toxic political environment, but it's still stupid as hell.

The sequester was designed with the explicit intent of being stupid. It was supposed to be the sword of Damocles hanging over lawmakers' heads, forcing them to come up with a reasonable agreement. Didn't seem to have worked out that way.

I'm en route to my doctoral degree in computer science though I may hop into a closely related engineering field. I want to go straight into R&D.I have absolutely no qualms about moving overseas if I get an increase in standard of living and/or a better/more fun job.

The sequester was designed with the explicit intent of being stupid. It was supposed to be the sword of Damocles hanging over lawmakers' heads, forcing them to come up with a reasonable agreement. Didn't seem to have worked out that way.

Exactly, it has cuts that both sides dislike. The only reason these stupid cuts are taking place is because they can't agree on what cuts are better. Republicans don't want the sequestration either but they have no other way of getting cuts.

All of this is to say what I already said. Both sides need to stop arguing over every single thing and make some painful compromises.

The sequester was designed with the explicit intent of being stupid. It was supposed to be the sword of Damocles hanging over lawmakers' heads, forcing them to come up with a reasonable agreement. Didn't seem to have worked out that way.

I remember playing chicken on our bikes when I was a kid. That didn't usually work out too well, either.

I say good! Every single government entity should be able to handle a 5% cut.

What are you basing this on?

It's based on a paradoxical worldview that large organizations should be able to run extremely lean with nothing to spare, and simultaneously be able to easily absorb large cuts without having a significant impact on operations.

Only, they aren't doing the first part. Why in the world does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?

And you know this how? Stats pls or it's just made up. How exactly would they "prove" to you that they were running lean enough?

The NSF had $5.9B in funding in 2007. My rough calculations show that a sequester cut of 5% of its 2012 funding would mean its funding will end up at the 2007 level, adjusted for inflation, or about $6.68B.

Even if the rate of inflation is somewhat higher for scientific research (and we should ask whether government spending has any effect on that), it’s difficult to see this as alarming.

Instead of lobbying for more government money, I'd prefer to take the opportunity to ask whether more funding of science could be done privately, especially since the fiscal situation of the government is so dire and not showing any sign of improvement (quite the contrary). Aside from any other reasons to avoid government involvement in science, stability of funding looks like a very good one right now.